TY - JOUR

T1 - Glucose Sensor Accuracy After Subcutaneous Glucagon Injections Near to Sensor Site

AU - Laugesen, Christian

AU - Schmidt, Signe

AU - Tetzschner, Rikke

AU - Nørgaard, Kirsten

AU - Ranjan, Ajenthen G

PY - 2020/2

Y1 - 2020/2

N2 - Background: Integrated hormone delivery and glucose sensing is warranted, but system performance could be challenged by glucose sensor susceptibility to pharmacological interferences. The aim of this study was to compare sensor accuracy (Medtronic Enlite 2®) after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of low-dose glucagon near to versus remote from sensor site. Methods: Twelve adults with insulin-pump-treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGMglucagon and CGMcontrol) placed on each side of the abdomen before, during, and after two overnight 14-h in-clinic visits. During each visit, a s.c. 100 μg glucagon injection was administered 2 cm next to the CGMglucagon followed by another injection of 100 μg glucagon 2 h later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-h in-clinic Yellow Spring Instrument (YSI) measurements and 3-day self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Results: Using YSI as comparator, no difference in the median absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGMglucagon (15.7%) and CGMcontrol (13.4%) was found (P = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGMglucagon (11.0%) and CGMcontrol (6.2%) using SMBG as comparator (P = 0.148). Values in zone A + B of Clarke error grid analysis did not differ between CGMglucagon and CGMcontrol using YSI (93.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.250) and SMBG (97.3% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.375) as reference measurement. The precision absolute relative deviation between sensors was 13.7%. Conclusions: Sensor accuracy was not significantly affected by administration of s.c. glucagon near to sensor site.

AB - Background: Integrated hormone delivery and glucose sensing is warranted, but system performance could be challenged by glucose sensor susceptibility to pharmacological interferences. The aim of this study was to compare sensor accuracy (Medtronic Enlite 2®) after subcutaneous (s.c.) administration of low-dose glucagon near to versus remote from sensor site. Methods: Twelve adults with insulin-pump-treated type 1 diabetes wore two continuous glucose monitors (CGMglucagon and CGMcontrol) placed on each side of the abdomen before, during, and after two overnight 14-h in-clinic visits. During each visit, a s.c. 100 μg glucagon injection was administered 2 cm next to the CGMglucagon followed by another injection of 100 μg glucagon 2 h later at the same site. CGM performance was evaluated using 4-h in-clinic Yellow Spring Instrument (YSI) measurements and 3-day self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in free-living conditions. Results: Using YSI as comparator, no difference in the median absolute relative difference (MARD) for CGMglucagon (15.7%) and CGMcontrol (13.4%) was found (P = 0.195). Similarly, no difference in MARD was found between CGMglucagon (11.0%) and CGMcontrol (6.2%) using SMBG as comparator (P = 0.148). Values in zone A + B of Clarke error grid analysis did not differ between CGMglucagon and CGMcontrol using YSI (93.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.250) and SMBG (97.3% vs. 95.0%, P = 0.375) as reference measurement. The precision absolute relative deviation between sensors was 13.7%. Conclusions: Sensor accuracy was not significantly affected by administration of s.c. glucagon near to sensor site.

U2 - 10.1089/dia.2019.0278

DO - 10.1089/dia.2019.0278

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31560217

VL - 22

SP - 131

EP - 135

JO - Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

JF - Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

SN - 1520-9156

IS - 2

ER -